Abstract of Systematic Theology

By Rev. James Petigru Boyce

Chapter 17

CREATION.

IT is natural that the origin of the universe should have been one
of the most prominent subjects of inquiry among men. Various
theories have been presented, not only by those who have been guided
by reason only, but even by others to whom revelation has been known
but not accepted as authoritative. All theories, however, may be
generally reduced to four.

That which asserts that matter is the one eternal,
self-existent substance from which all else proceeds.

That which regards it as an emanation from God.

That which maintains that matter is itself eternal, but has
been acted upon by God, who has used its substance in the
construction of all things, thus giving to them form and life.

That which accords with the Scripture teaching, that the
universe has been made absolutely out of nothing, by the active
exercise of the will and power of God.

It is the duty of Theology to examine each of these theories, and to
set forth the reasons for believing that matter is neither
self-existent and independently eternal, nor an emanation from God,
nor mere material used by him, but has been created out of nothing.

1. Matter is not the one eternal, self-existent substance from which
all else proceeds.

(1.) If it is, then mind is the product of matter, and not matter
that of mind.

The universe presents to us both mind and matter. Each of these must
exist independently of the other, or the one must have been the
production of the other. Which then has been the producing cause?
Have the mental powers, which are exhibited by man, been the
development of forces inherent in matter, which through various
processes have finally attained to self-consciousness, and thought,
and purpose, such as we find in man? or is there some infinite mind
which has originated all things, both mind and matter?

The greater reasonableness of the supposition that mind has
originated matter is ably set forth by Dr. Hovey, in his Manual of
Theology, pp. 28-39. He contends that it is more reasonable to
suppose, (1.) that there is one original and self-existent force or
being than more than one; (2.) that matter is a product of mind,
rather than mind of matter; (3.) that the order of the universe is
due to a supreme mind, rather than to forces co-operating together
without purpose; (4.) that the vegetable world is a product of mind
organizing matter, rather than of matter organizing itself; (5.)
that the animal world is a product of mind, imparting a higher
organizing principle to vegetable elements, rather than of vegetable
forces acting alone; (6.) that man, as a rational being, is a
product of mind, giving a higher principle of life to animal being,
rather than of mere vital forces acting without reason; (7.) that
man, as a moral being, is a product of the supreme mind, itself
moral, rather than of vital forces that have no moral insight; (8.)
that man, as a religious being, is a product of the supreme mind,
rather than of mere vital forces.

The above are simply condensed statements of the mere propositions
laid down by Dr. Hovey. His full argument shows conclusively how
utterly unreasonable is the idea that mind should have proceeded
from matter, and not produced it. But, if so, it is equally
unreasonable that matter should be the one originating cause of the
universe.

(2.) The same fact appears from the existence of the laws which
control matter. Matter has fixed limitations, within which alone it
can act. Its movements, its changes of form, its developments, and
indeed all things connected with it are governed by fixed, and, so
far as we can see, unchangeable laws. These laws can be examined and
known, and made the basis of the action of men. Now these laws can
be accounted for only in one of three ways. Either they belong to
matter as a necessity of its nature, or matter has the power to give
to itself laws, or these laws have been imposed upon it by a
superior intelligence. But if the first be true, then that necessity
of nature would not only make these laws unchangeable, (for whatever
exists of necessity, exists without possibility of change,) but
would likewise make it impossible for men to conceive of any
reasonable change in them in any respect. But the fact that there is
such great diversity among the scientific theories which attempt to
develop the laws controlling nature in many of its aspects, and that
there seems no absurdity nor natural impossibility that the law
should accord with any one of these theories, or be different from
it,--evinces that there is no absurdity nor unreasonableness in
supposing that the material universe might have been placed under
very different laws from those which exist.

But the second of these suppositions cannot he true, because matter
must then, in some aspect, have had intelligence to understand, and
establish law before the existence of mind in any form; for science
teaches that created mind, (which, upon the supposition, is the only
kind of existent mind,) comes forth in connection with the higher
organismsof existence, and long after apparent operation of
the laws which regulate matter.

It is certain, therefore, that the laws of matter have been imposed
by a superior intelligence, and, consequently, that matter cannot be
the eternal, self-existent substance, from which all else proceeds.

(3.) The incapacity of matter to create anything shows that it is
not self-existent, and eternal. All that is claimed for matter is
the power to develop one form into another. It is even denied that
there has been any increase in its original materials since it first
began to be. But it is evident that whatever cannot be the cause of
existence to others, cannot be the cause of its own existence, or be
self-existent. The latter is a far higher power than the former.

(4.) That matter is not eternally self-existent is also manifest
from the fact that it exists in time. The laws of time require
succession of moments and limits of duration. Matter could not he
eternal in any other way than through the existence of an infinite
series of finite periods, which is absurd.

2. Matter is not an emanation from God.

That which goes forth from God must either be from his nature, or
from his mere will and power. But the latter would be a mere
creation out of nothing, since it would not be something produced
out of himself. An emanation from God must, therefore, proceed from
his nature. But it cannot be of this character.

(a) Because, if from his nature, it must possess the attributes of
that nature, and must exist in the same mode of existence with it.
But matter has none of the attributes which belong to God. Nor is
the mode of its existence like his. It has neither self-existence,
nor eternity of existence, nor even infinity of space or time, since
it is composed of finite parts, and exists in successive moments
which are finite and measurable. It has not intelligence, nor
purposing power, nor can it have wisdom or goodness, neither can it
exercise justice, nor experience love.

(b) An emanation from the nature of God would be opposed to the
doctrine of the unity of God. That which thus proceeds would be as
truly God as that from which it comes forth. We should, therefore,
have two Gods. Indeed, as matter itself is capable of indefinite
division, there would be an indefinite number of Gods. The doctrine
of the Trinity gives no support to such an emanation as matter would
necessarily be. It does not teach an emanation from the nature of
God, for the divine nature remains one only, and is not divided
among the three persons, but is the common substance in which they
subsist. In order that matter should subsist in God in like manner,
it must itself have a conscious personal existence, and have all the
attributes of God, and have the same mode of existence.

3. Neither is matter a substance upon which God has simply acted in
the production of the Universe.

(a) The evidence that it is not eternal shows that it was not thus
present of itself with God furnishing material for his workmanship.
If it existed at any time as purely inorganic, it must either have
been first created in that condition, or permitted to lapse into it
from its original form.

(b) The power and right thus to act upon matter must either have
been conferred upon God, as it is on us, or it must have arisen from
his having created it. But as there was no one to confer this power
upon God, the Universe must have been created by him.

4. The theory of a creation out of nothing, by the mere will and
power of God, is then the only reasonable supposition upon which to
account for the existence of the Universe. It is not an objection to
this reasonableness, that it was first made known by Revelation.
Being thus revealed, it appears to reason, not only to be fully
accordant with all the facts and phenomena of matter, but to be the
only theory which can account for them. That this theory has been
suggested by the language of God's word makes it no less reasonable
than if suggested by some mere man. It is at once seen not to be an
impossibility. It is not a creation out of nothing, in the sense
that it has had no cause, or has been produced without the existence
of forces adequate to the end. The cause and the forces are in God;
in his will, and wisdom, and power, and goodness. It cannot be said
to come from nothing, for it comes from God. The mind readily rests
in such a theory. It fully answers all the demands of the problem to
be solved. It is accompanied with none of the difficulties which
press against the theories based upon the eternity of matter. The
manner in which God works is indeed unknown to us; but that he may
so work is highly accordant with reason.

The creation of the world out of nothing is the plain teaching of
Scripture. It is true, that the phrase to "create from nothing" is
not found, except in one of the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament (2 Maccabees 7:28). But the fact itself is taught
expressly in Heb. 11:3. "By faith we understand that the worlds have
been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been
made out of things which do appear." The account of the general
creation in Genesis conveys the same idea, and a like impression is
produced by the Scriptures generally. It has been argued from the
verbs, used to declare the creation, both in Genesis and elsewhere;
but the argument is doubtful, as these words are also applied to
acts of creation out of pre-existent matter.

This creation out of nothing seems essential to the power of God
over matter. If he did not create it, it exists independently of
him; but if it is his creation, then he has absolute control, not
only over the forms into which he has shaped it, and over the laws
he has given it, but over matter itself in every respect, even over
its longer existence for a moment of time.

A distinction is made between immediate or primary creation, which
is that act by which God acts directly without the use of
pre-existent materials, and mediate and secondary creations, which
are those acts by which out of pre-existent materials he produces
his creatures. The universe of matter was an immediate creation. The
body of Adam was a mediate one, and so, also, are those of all his
posterity.

Several objections have been presented against the full inspiration
of the account of the Creation given in the first chapters of
Genesis.

(1.) It is claimed that the general account which concludes with the
third verse of the second chapter cannot be an inspired writing,
because it was evidently taken from some other source, and
incorporated in this book.

In reply It may be said:

(a) That this has not been, and cannot be established.

(b) That if it were, it would not affect its inspiration.

It is much more probable that the genealogies of Christ, given by
Matthew and Luke, were from the records of the family of David. The
inspiration of Matthew, and Luke, and Moses does not depend upon
these having been made as direct revelations to him; but upon the
fact that they were moved by the Holy Ghost to insert them in the
books they were writing, such moving of the Spirit being, however,
an evidence of the truthfulness of the records. If; therefore, it
could be proved that the account of creation existed long before the
days of Moses, this proof would, in no respect, militate against its
inspiration.

(2.) Another objection is that Genesis represents the Creation as
occurring in six literal days of twenty-four hours each, and that
geological science has proved that the world was created in periods
of time much longer.

But the account does not necessarily teach that this work was done
in six such days.

(a) Because the word "day" is sometimes an indefinite term, the true
meaning of which must be ascertained by the context. It is applied
to each of these periods in the first chapter, and also to all of
them unitedly in Gen. 2:4. The Scriptures frequently use it very
indefinitely, as the "day of trouble," "of wrath," "of temptation,"
"of vengeance," etc. It even embraces the whole period of a
captivity as "the day of Jerusalem," Ps, 137:7; and "the day of
Egypt," Ezek. 30:9. These, and many other applications, show that
frequently it means merely a period, and the length of that period
must be accertained otherwise.

(b) Because the Hebrew words translated "evening," and "morning,"
while almost always used for those portions of the day, do not
necessarily indicate a day of twenty-four hours' duration, but may
denote only the changes which occur periodically in any cyclical
period. The root ideas of these words are "the mingling" (evening)
and "the bursting forth" (morning). They are thus beautifully
descriptive of a time of intermingling of the elements, leading to a
period of darkness, and that again followed by the bursting forth of
the appearance of a new creation, the whole forming one cyclical
period. The length of the period is not necessarily indicated by
them. The use, also, of these words before the appearance of the Sun
and Moon on the fourth day, very decidedly confirms the idea that
the periods need not be those of an ordinary day.

(c) While it is admitted that the resting of God upon the seventh
day, in connection with the language of the commandment respecting
the observance of the Sabbath, favours the idea of days of
twenty-four hours, even this does not make necessary such days. We
know not what is exactly meant by God's resting on the seventh day.
There is certainly something figurative, or anthropomorphic about
it. The "rest" of this first chapter may represent the ceasing from
creative work in this world, and the seventh day of rest, which man
is commanded to observe, may he commemorative and typical of the
former; this being brief and inferior, in comparison with that, as
man is but an atom in the creation of the great God of this greater
Sabbath.

From these facts it is manifest that we are not compelled to
maintain that the creation was limited to six ordinary days. This is
all that is necessary. If science can show the impossibility of such
a six-day creation, we can reply that the Scriptures do not
necessarily teach it. And the fact of this possibility of
concurrence with possible scientific discoveries, heretofore so
generally unlooked for, becomes strong evidence of the inspiration
of this account of Creation.

(3.) Another objection is, that, according to any scripture
chronology which we have, man has been on the earth only six or
eight thousand years, and yet that fossil remains of men have been
found who must have existed fifty thousand years ago, or more.

(a) But satisfactory proof of this has not yet been afforded.
Scientific men themselves are not agreed about it.

(b) But if true, the Scriptures are not necessarily wrong, nor
uninspired. The chronology of the different forms in which the Old
Testament has come down to us is known to vary. This is attributable
to mistakes in copying, which can more easily occur in the
representations of numbers, than of any other ideas. It may be that
Adam was created more than eight thousand years ago, and that the
original chronology of the Scriptures so taught. It may be that, in
connection with that greater antiquity, if all were known about it,
would appear explanations of the great age to which many of the
patriarchs are said to have arrived. Nor is it impossible that other
races of men existed before Adam, either endowed as he was, with
both spiritual and animal life, or they with animal life only, and
he with the specially added endowment of a spiritual nature. While
it is granted that such has not probably been the fact, yet is it
not impossible that it may have been.

While these various objections thus seem not to render impossible
the absolute verity of this Genesis account of Creation, there are
other facts which ought to be remembered which support the
narrative.

1. That it is natural that the Scripture should use phenomenal
language only as to scientific matters. We do this every time we
speak of the sun rising and setting, and no one misunderstands, or
is deceived. This is the only method in which a book for all ages
could refer to scientific matters. Had the Bible used language
exactly suited to the science of to-day, embracing all its best
established theories, in less than fifty years it would have to be
admitted that it couldnot be from God, because of its
lack of truth. Had it been written in the language of true science
originally, age after age would have rejected it as false. It could
only treat science phenomenally.

2. But, while thus written, it often gives underlying evidence that
God its author knew truths of science, that could not have been
known to the science of that day. This is particularly shown in this
account of Creation. Light here appears before the Sun and the Moon.
The order of the creations accords generally with that taught by
Geology from an examination of the stratifications of the rocks. Man
is made after all other creations, and his body is made of the dust
of the earth. Even the universe was not made as it now appears, for,
while the first verse of the first chapter states the creation of
both heavens and earth, the second teaches that, before the
formative process began, the earth was in a chaotic condition. The
truth is, that, so generally, and yet so accurately, are the
statements made, that, even if it could be proved that the Universe
is the production of original concurrent atoms, or of a universal
fire mist, or the development of molecules, there is nothing in this
Genesis account to commit it to the contrary. Even the creation of
animal life, including that of man, is from the earth, which is
directed to bring forth. The soul of man is the only living thing
which is declared to have been a direct creation of God.

Several theories have been presented for the full reconciliation of
Genesis and Geology. It is not necessary to state them here. It is
enough that there are possible means of such reconciliation, and
that any one, or more of them, may be true. The veracity of the
Scriptures is otherwise abundantly proved. Here it is charged that
they speak falsely. Were a man of well-known probity and honour thus
assailed, and facts, however strong, or cumulative, presented
against him, it would suffice to support his denial by showing that
there are possible circumstances which may explain all seeming
falsehood. So with the Scriptures. They are charged with error. It
is enough to show one possible explanation. But, in this case, we
can show several. This would suffice. But we are justified in
challenging those who deny inspiration to account for the many
coincidences with the scientific teaching found in this narrative.